1887
  1. Home
  2. A-Z Publications
  3. Near Surface Geophysics
  4. Volume 16, Issue 4
  5. Article
Volume 16, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 1569-4445
  • E-ISSN: 1873-0604

Abstract

ABSTRACT

Moisture dynamics in road systems significantly affect road structure design and maintenance. This study analysed moisture dynamics in a cross‐section of motorway (the E18) in Sweden during a 1‐year period through monitoring using electrical resistivity tomography (ERT). The monitoring methodology was assessed since resistivity can provide a good proxy for monitoring moisture in the road structure. Monthly electrical resistivity was calculated by inverting resistivity data along a pre‐installed electrical resistivity line beneath the surface asphalt layer of the road at the test site. The electrical resistivity data were then statistically analysed and correlated with local climate data, that is precipitation and temperature, and with ground parameters such as moisture content. The results showed high variation in resistivity in the road surface layer and road shoulders depending on weather conditions, water flow and other surface activities. In general, negative correlations between electrical resistivity and precipitation were observed. The results also indicated possible retardation of de‐icing salt after accumulating in the top layer during winter. These findings advance understanding of the moisture dynamics in roads and can help improve pavement design in response to future climate change.

© 2018 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers © 2018 European Association of Geoscientists & Engineers
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12002
2018-07-27
2024-04-19

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12002
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Abdul‐NafiuA.K., NawawiM.M.N., AbdullahK., SaheedI.K. and AbdullahA.2013. Effects of electrode spacing and inversion techniques on the efficiency of 2D resistivity imaging to delineate subsurface features. American Journal of Applied Science10, 64–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  2. Abu‐HassaneinZ., BensonC. and BlotzL.1996. Electrical resistivity of compacted clays. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering122, 397–406.
     [Google Scholar]
  3. AukenE., PellerinL., ChristensenNB. and SorensenK.2006. A survey of current trends in near‐surface electrical and electromagnetic methods. Geophysics71, 249–260.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. BarkerR.D. and MooreJ.1998. The application of time‐lapse electrical tomography in groundwater studies. The Leading Edge17, 1454–1458.
     [Google Scholar]
  5. BernerE.K. and BernerR.A.2012. Global Environment Water, Air and Geochemical Cycles (2ED). Princeton University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  6. BessonA., CousinI., DorignyA., DabasM. and KingD.2008. The temperature correction for the electrical resistivity measurements in undisturbed soil samples: analysis of the existing conversion models and proposal of a new model. Soil Science173, 707–720.
     [Google Scholar]
  7. BlomqvistG., GustafssonM., EramM. and ŰnverK.2011. Prediction of salt on road surface. Journal of Transportation Research Board2258, 131–138.
     [Google Scholar]
  8. BrunetP., ClementR. and BouvierC.2010. Monitoring soil water content and deficit using electrical resistivity tomography (ERT) – a case study in the Cevennes area, France. Journal of Hydrology380, 156–153.
     [Google Scholar]
  9. BrysonL.S. and BatheA.2009. Determination of selected geotechnical properties of soil using electrical conductivity testing. ASTM Geotechnical Testing Journal32, 252–261.
     [Google Scholar]
  10. Campbell
    Campbell . 2015. TRD100 Instruction Manual . Campbell Scientific, Inc. Retrieved from https://www.campbellsci.com/tdr100.
  11. CassianiG., BrunoV., VillaA., FusiN. and BinelyA.M.2006. A saline tracer test monitored via time‐lapse surface electrical resistivity tomography. Journal of Applied Geophysics59, 244–259.
     [Google Scholar]
  12. CassianiG., GodioA., StoccoS., VillaA., DeianaR., FrattiniP., et al. 2009. Monitoring the hydrologic behaviour of a mountain slope via time‐lapse electrical resistivity tomography. Near Surface Geophysics7, 475–486.
     [Google Scholar]
  13. ChambersJ.E., GunnD.A., WilkinsonP.B., MeldrumP.I., HaslamE., HolyoakeS., et al. 2014. 4D electrical resistivity tomography monitoring of soil moisture dynamics in an operational railway embankment. Near Surface Geophysics12, 61–72.
     [Google Scholar]
  14. ClaerboutJ.F. and MuirF.1973. Robust modelling with erratic data. Geophysics38, 826–844.
     [Google Scholar]
  15. DahlinT.1996. 2D resistivity surveying for environmental and engineering applications. First Break14, 275–283.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. DahlinT. and LokeM.H.1998. Resolution of 2D Wenner resistivity imaging as assessed by numerical modelling. Journal of Applied Geophysics37, 237–249.
     [Google Scholar]
  17. DailyW. and RamirezA.1995. Electrical resistance tomography during in‐situ trichloroethylene remediation at the Savannah River Site. Journal of Applied Geophysics33, 239–249.
     [Google Scholar]
  18. DailyW., RamirezA., LabrecqueD. and NitaoJ.1992. Electrical‐resistivity tomography of vadose water‐movement. Water Resources Research28, 1429–1442.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. DawsonA.
    (ed.). 2009. Water in Road Structures – Movement, Drainage & Effects. Springer.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. EaronR., OlofssonB. and RenmanG.2012. Initial effects of a new highway section on soil and groundwater. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution223, 5413–5432.
     [Google Scholar]
  21. GriffithsD.H. and TurnbullJ.1985. A multi‐electrode array for resistivity surveying. First Break3, 16–20.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. GunnD.A., ChambersJ.E., UhlimannS., WilkinsonP.B., MeldrumP.I., DijkstraT.A., et al. 2014. Moisture monitoring in clay embankments using electrical resistivity tomography. Construction and Building Material95, 82–94.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. HarrisonR.M. and WilsonS.J.1985. The chemical composition of highway drainage waters. Major ions and selected trace metals. The Science of the Total Environment43, 63–77.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. JohnsonR.A.2011. Miller & Freund's Probability and Statistics for Engineers, 8th edn. Pearson.
     [Google Scholar]
  25. JohanssonS. and DahlinT.1996. Seepage monitoring in an earth embankment dam by repeated resistivity measurements. European Journal of Environmental and Engineering Geophysics1, 229–247.
     [Google Scholar]
  26. KellerG.V. and FrischknechtF.C.1966. Electrical Methods in Geophysical Prospecting. Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  27. LandauS. and EverittB.S.2014. A Handbook of Statistical Analysis Using SPSS. Chapman and Hall, CRC Press LLC.
     [Google Scholar]
  28. LerouxV. and DahlinT.2005. Time‐lapse resistivity investigations for imaging saltwater transport in glaciofluvial deposits. Environmental Geology49, 347–358.
     [Google Scholar]
  29. LindströmR.2006. A system for modelling groundwater contamination in water supply areas ‐ chloride contamination from road de‐icing as an example. Nordic Hydrology37, 41–51.
     [Google Scholar]
  30. LokeM.H.2001. Constrained time‐lapse resistivity imaging inversion. 14th EEGS Symposium on the Application of Geophysics to Engineering and Environmental Problems, Electrical and Electromagnetic Method Session.
  31. LokeM.H.2016. Tutorial: 2D and 3D electrical imaging surveys. Retrieved from http://www.geotomosoft.com/.
  32. LokeM.H. and BarkerR.D.1996. Rapid least‐squares inversion of apparent resistivity pseudosections by a quasi‐Newton method. Geophysical Prospecting44, 131–152.
     [Google Scholar]
  33. LokeM.H., DahlinT. and RuckerD.F.2014. Smoothness‐constrained time‐lapse inversion of data from 3D resistivity surveys. Near Surface Geophysics12, 5–24.
     [Google Scholar]
  34. LoomsM.C., JensenK.H., BinleyA. and NielsenL.2008. Monitoring unsaturated flow and transport using cross‐borehole geophysical methods. Vadose Zone Journal7, 227–237.
     [Google Scholar]
  35. LundmarkA. and OlofssonB.2007. Cl deposition and distribution in soils along a deiced highway – assessment using different methods of measurement. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution182, 215–232.
     [Google Scholar]
  36. OgilvyR.D., KurasO., MeldrumP.I., WilkinsonP.B., GisbertJ., JorretoS., et al. 2007. Automated monitoring of coastal aquifers with electrical resistivity tomography. In: Coastal Aquifers: Challenges and Solutions (eds A.Pulido Bosch , J.A.López‐Geta and G.Ramos González ), pp. 333–342. Instituto Geológico y Minero de España, Madrid.
     [Google Scholar]
  37. OgilvyR.D., MeldrumP.I., KurasO., WilkinsonP.B., ChambersJ.E., SenM., et al. 2009. Automated monitoring of coastal aquifers with electrical resistivity tomography. Near Surface Geophysics7, 367–375.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. OlofssonB. and LundmarkA.2009. Monitoring the impact of de‐icing salt on roadside soils with time‐lapse resistivity measurements. Environmental Geology57 (1), 217–229.
     [Google Scholar]
  39. RhoadesJ.D., RaatsP.A.C. and PratherR.J.1976. Effects of liquid‐phase electrical conductivity, water content and surface conductivity on bulk soil electrical conductivity. Soil Science Society of American Journal40, 651–655.
     [Google Scholar]
  40. RiehmM.2012. Measurements for winter road maintenance. TRITA, LWR PhD, ISSN 1650–8602; 1069, 45 p.
  41. SamouëlianA., CousinI., TobbaghA., BruandA. and RichardG.2005. Electrical resistivity survey in soil science: a review. Soil and Tillage Research83, 173–193.
     [Google Scholar]
  42. SlaterL. and BinleyA.2003. Evaluation of permeable reactive barrier (PRB) integrity using electrical imaging methods. Geophysics68, 911–921.
     [Google Scholar]
  43. SlaterL. and SandbergS.2000. Resistivity and induced polarization monitoring of salt transport under natural hydraulic gradients. Geophysics65, 408–420.
     [Google Scholar]
  44. ShevninV., MousatovA., RyjovA. and Delgado‐RodriquezO.2007. Estimation of clay content in soil based on resistivity modelling and laboratory measurements. Geophysical Prospecting55, 265–275.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. SjödahlP., DahlinT. and JohanssonS.2009. Embankment dam seepage evaluation from resistivity monitoring data. Near Surface Geophysics7, 463–474.
     [Google Scholar]
  46. SMHI
    SMHI . 2017. Luftwebb. Retrieved from http://www.luftwebb.smhi.se/.
  47. SumanovacF., UrumovicK. and DragicevicI.2003. Hydrogeological mapping of a Miocene aquifer by two‐dimensional electrical imaging. Rudarsko‐geološko‐naftni zbornik15, 19–29.
     [Google Scholar]
  48. SwarzenskiP.W., BurnettW.C., GreenwoodW.J., HerutB., PetersonR., DimovaN., et al. 2006. Combined time‐series resistivity and geochemical tracer techniques to examine submarine groundwater discharge at Dor Beach, Israel. Geophysical Research Letters33. https//doi.org.10.1029.
     [Google Scholar]
  49. TelfordW.M., GeldartL.P., SheriffR.E. and KeysD.A.1990. Applied Geophysics, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Test site E18
    Test site E18 . 2017. Climate and test station data. Retrieved from http://www.testsitee18.se.
  51. ThunqvistE.L.2004. Regional increase of mean chloride concentration in water due to application of deicing salt. Science of the Total Environment325, 29–37.
     [Google Scholar]
  52. ToppG.C., DavisJ.L. and AnnanA.P.1980. Electromagnetic determination of soil water content and electrical conductivity measurement using time domain reflectometry. Water Resources Research16, 574–582.
     [Google Scholar]
  53. ToppG.C., ZegelinS. and WhiteI.2000. Impacts of the real and the imaginary components of relative dielectric permittivity on time domain reflectometry measurements in soils. Soil Science Society of American Journal64, 1244–1252.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Trafikverket
    Trafikverket . 2005. Kapitel E Obundna material (in Swedish). VV Publ2005:112. Retrieved from http://www.trafikverket.se/.
     [Google Scholar]
  55. Trafikverket
    Trafikverket . 2013. Åtgärdsvalsstudie E18, väg 56 och väg 66 I centrala Västerås. Report2013:184 (in Swedish). Retrieved from http://www.trafikverket.se/
     [Google Scholar]
  56. Trafikverket
    Trafikverket . 2015. From trafikverket annual archive data. Retrieved from http://www.trafikverket.se/.
  57. ValorisR., GalibertP‐Y, GuerinR. and PlagnesV.2016. Application of combined time‐lapse seismic refraction and electrical resistivity tomography to the analysis of infiltration and dissolution processes in the epikarst of the Causse du Larzac (France). Near Surface Geophysics14, 13–22.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. WennerF.1912a. The four‐terminal conductor and the Thompson bridge. US Bureau of Standards Bulletin8, 559–610.
     [Google Scholar]
  59. WennerF.1912b. A method of measuring earth resistivity. US Bureau of Standards Bulletin12, 469–478.
     [Google Scholar]
  60. WilhelmssonH.2017. Tjälgränsmätning (in Swedish). Retrieved from https://www.vti.se/sv/Forskningsomraden/Tjalgransmatning/.
  61. WilkinsonP.B., MeldrumP.I., KurasO., ChambersJ.E., HolyoakeS.J. and OgilvyR.D.2010. High‐resolution electrical resistivity tomography monitoring of a tracer test in a confined aquifer. Journal of Applied Geophysics70, 268–276.
     [Google Scholar]
  62. YisaJ.2010. Heavy metal contamination of road deposited sediments. American Journal of Applied Science7, 1231–1236.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. ZhouB. and DahlinT.2003. Properties and effects of measurement errors on 2D resistivity imaging. Near Surface Geophysics1,105–117.
     [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12002
Loading
Monitoring of moisture and salinity content in an operational road structure by electrical resistivity tomography
Near Surface Geophysics 16, 423 (2018); https://doi.org/10.1002/nsg.12002
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12002
/content/journals/10.1002/nsg.12002
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): De‐icing salt; Electrical resistivity tomography; In situ monitoring; Moisture content; Road structure

Most Cited This Month Most Cited RSS feed

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error